No sane person would expect a complete turnaround in 12 months or anything, but really, how long can this old line still hold water with the electorate?

I mean really, at some point, you gotta be accountable, step up, and say that righting the ship is now up to me, and I can no longer use the excuse that the previous guy left a really big mess.

What if Obama gets re-elected, and we get 4 more years of gridlock because he still cant get congress to do anything, because he thinks his responsibility to his 2 daughters exceeds his responsibility to over 300 million American people...http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinio...iref=allsearch

So then, in 2016, the personal net worth of the average or median person will still not have recovered to pre-Obama levels, and maybe the unemployment rate wont have recovered to pre-Obama levels either? What will the Democrats say then? Please elect our new candidate (whoever that is), because we're still cleaning up Bush's mess? How long will that go on? Will I still even be alive by the time they stop pulling out that excuse?

No sane person would expect a complete turnaround in 12 months or anything, but really, how long can this old line still hold water with the electorate?

I mean really, at some point, you gotta be accountable, step up, and say that righting the ship is now up to me, and I can no longer use the excuse that the previous guy left a really big mess.

What if Obama gets re-elected, and we get 4 more years of gridlock because he still cant get congress to do anything, because he thinks his responsibility to his 2 daughters exceeds his responsibility to over 300 million American people...http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinio...iref=allsearch

So then, in 2016, the personal net worth of the average or median person will still not have recovered to pre-Obama levels, and maybe the unemployment rate wont have recovered to pre-Obama levels either? What will the Democrats say then? Please elect our new candidate (whoever that is), because we're still cleaning up Bush's mess? How long will that go on? Will I still even be alive by the time they stop pulling out that excuse?

I completely understand why Republicans would like to just forget about the Bush years and erase from America's collective memory that the previous Republican administration ever even happened.

But that's kind of difficult to do especially since George W Bush and friends left us with worst financial crisis in history since the great depression - all wrapped up in a bow and handed it to the incoming president like an orphaned infant laid on an unsuspecting person's doorstep.

Let me also remind you once again that this calamity occured just a couple of months before the election. So it's not like this president even had a chance to prepare for what he was about to inherit.

The Subprime mortgage disaster came to a head resulting in the simultaneous default of millions of subprime loans leading to millions of foreclosures and a precipitous drop in the value of homes all across the country. Many Americans were left underwater with homes whose value was less than their mortgages.

The entire banking industry began to collapse under the weight of all the defaulting loans

The stock market crashed hitting record lows and obliterating the retirement savings of millions of Americans almost overnight.

All 3 auto makers already weekend by soft demand and strong competition from foreign auto makers suffered record losses and were teetering on the edge of shutting down

The economy was losing 750 thousand jobs each month. The nation's economy was in complete freefall.

Oh and did I mention the previous president started 2 wars that he didn't finish. And didn't PAY FOR...

Again, all this occurred just before the current president was even sworn into office...

Since then under President Obama the country has added 4.5 million jobs and is currently adding jobs each month. By the way that's more jobs than the previous administration added in 8 years.

The unemployment rate is trending down.

The banking industry is now strong again and experiencing record profits

The housing industry which was impacted the hardest by the financial collapse is at or near the bottom and beginning to rebound all across the country.

The stock market is at an all time high, and Wall Street is having record profits.

And President Obama ended the war in Iraq. He is on target to drow down and end the war in Afghanistan as well.

Bill Clinton said it best about the Republican narative on Obama: "We left him a HUGE MESS, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.

I say SCREW THAT. Let this president finish what he started. IT'S WORKING.

Also regarding that gridlock thing...

Let's not forget that the Republican walrus guru Rush Limbaugh famously said "I hope he fails" about Obama before the guy was even sworn into office.

And let's also not forget Republican curmudgeon descended from a turtle and current Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnel famously said less than 3 months into President Obama's term in office "Republican's top priority will be to make Obama a one term president. Well the Republicans have definitely doubled down on their commitment since then.

In my opinion that one statement from Senator McConnel sums up Republican politics in total over the last 3 1/2 years.

A political pary that makes it's whole agenda about being against someone or something is not deserving of the trust and faith of the American people to lead the country. We're better than that.

Too bad the GOP controlled Congress won't bring the American Jobs Act to a vote. They will continually vote to repeal The Afforable Care ACt, but when it comes time to actually vote on real legislation that could help the country, they have their heads in the sand saying "no!"

But that's kind of difficult to do especially since George W Bush and friends left us with worst financial crisis in history since the great depression - all wrapped up in a bow and handed it to the incoming president like an orphaned infant laid on an unsuspecting person's doorstep.

The credit/mortgage crisis cannot be blamed squarely on Bush. It was a product largely of forces out of his administration's immediate control.

The bailout of a hedgefund in 1998 (LCTM) added significantly to the plagued risk-ignorant culture on Wall St. Then, Clinton signed some brilliant legislation. First Gramm-Leach-Bliley, aka repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowing investment and commercial banks to merge, growing them to sizes requiring some sort of bailout if they were to fail, and more importantly, allowing them to play with regular clients' money. Next, Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, allowing for unregulated trading of complex derivatives which would play a central role in the 2008 crisis. The banks would later convince the SEC to allow them to leverage past 12:1 in 2004, which also had a tremendous effect on the bubble.

From the tech crash in 2000 and through the next few years, Greenspan continuously lowered interest rates, trying to spur the stock market. Low interest rates brought about a necessity for large ETFs and mutual funds to look for ways to increase returns, growing the mortgage fraud, subprime lending, risk-passing, and the credit bubble overall.

Once it burst, Bush's admin. didn't act, so the Fed stepped in and assumed a ton of power, most of which it still holds. If Bush is to be blamed for one thing economically (not including the wars), that should be it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

The stock market is at an all time high, and Wall Street is having record profits.

Too bad the GOP controlled Congress won't bring the American Jobs Act to a vote. They will continually vote to repeal The Afforable Care ACt, but when it comes time to actually vote on real legislation that could help the country, they have their heads in the sand saying "no!"

Most of the time they vote on random BS to help with re-election. A few senators have come out and publicly stated that the amount of time they spend on major issues is marginal.

I think there needs to be significant reform in the way that the [congressional] election process is carried out, both financially and time-wise. Congress will continue to get less effective until that happens...or until special interests assume a dominate influence.

The bailout of a hedgefund in 1998 (LCTM) added significantly to the plagued risk-ignorant culture on Wall St. Then, Clinton signed some brilliant legislation. First Gramm-Leach-Bliley, aka repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowing investment and commercial banks to merge, growing them to sizes requiring some sort of bailout if they were to fail, and more importantly, allowing them to play with regular clients' money. Next, Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, allowing for unregulated trading of complex derivatives which would play a central role in the 2008 crisis. The banks would later convince the SEC to allow them to leverage past 12:1 in 2004, which also had a tremendous effect on the bubble.

You left out what I consider to be a huge factor, which is Clinton's affordable housing act, which basically made it much easier for anyone with a pulse to get a mortgage. This drove prices to irrational levels, because the previous barrier to entry to get a mortgage was gone, so now you have dumb highschool dropouts who understand nothing about economics engaging in crazy bidding wars. Once they lose their shift at Jack in the Box, now they cant make the payments on their original mortgage, plus the HELOC they used to buy a new speedboat they couldnt afford either. That planted the seeds for the housing bubble, which, combined with the Acts described above, started the financial death spiral we are all too familiar with today.

I'm not saying Dubya was the finest president ever, but to blame him 100% for what happened is quite short sighted. Perhaps some of the posters are too young to remember what happened when Bill was in office.

Even as things started to collapse, in the final days of the dubya administration, I dont recall them saying the housing crisis is all Clinton's fault, the way the Obama administration likes to say it's all Bush's fault. Every president after Washington had to deal with the baggage of their predecessor, it comes with the job. I dont recall any of them pointing the finger at the previous administration as much as the current one does.

Let's not forget that the Republican walrus guru Rush Limbaugh famously said "I hope he fails" about Obama before the guy was even sworn into office.

And let's also not forget Republican curmudgeon descended from a turtle and current Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnel famously said less than 3 months into President Obama's term in office "Republican's top priority will be to make Obama a one term president. Well the Republicans have definitely doubled down on their commitment since then.

In my opinion that one statement from Senator McConnel sums up Republican politics in total over the last 3 1/2 years.

A political pary that makes it's whole agenda about being against someone or something is not deserving of the trust and faith of the American people to lead the country. We're better than that.

Let's assume that is true for a moment, (and pretend it has nothing to do with the criticism from both parties, including his own, that he doesnt spend enough time developing relationships with deal-makers who can push his agenda forward, because Malia needs help with her math homework ).

What exactly makes you thing that a 2nd Obama term will suddenly turn these obstructionist tea-partiers (who are now really disgruntled) into highly-cooperative deal-makers ? Why would we not get another 4 years of gridlock?

I know Repbulicans love the word "no" but I concede that my statement wasn't accurate so let me correct it with the following:

The total returns of the stock market have reached all time highs under President Obama and the Dow Jones Industrial average is up 67 percent since Obama took office. Stock holders have recovered losses sustained during the market crash and have actually added significant profits to their portfolios during the President's term. Wall Street is doing more than fine. This would be a significant occurrance even during a vibrant economy but it's even more impressive considering the economic conditions this president encountered at the beginning of his term. This is a fact you won't hear Republicans talking much about.

I know Repbulicans love the word "no" but I concede that my statement wasn't accurate so let me correct it with the following:

The total returns of the stock market have reached all time highs under President Obama and the Dow Jones Industrial average is up 67 percent since Obama took office. Stock holders have recovered losses sustained during the market crash and have actually added significant profits to their portfolios during the President's term. Wall Street is doing more than fine. This would be a significant occurrance even during a vibrant economy but it's even more impressive considering the economic conditions this president encountered at the beginning of his term. This is a fact you won't hear Republicans talking much about.

And I'm sure he'd pounce at the opportunity to take full credit for the stock market rebound, like he does everything else.

Let's assume that is true for a moment, (and pretend it has nothing to do with the criticism from both parties, including his own, that he doesnt spend enough time developing relationships with deal-makers who can push his agenda forward, because Malia needs help with her math homework ).

What exactly makes you thing that a 2nd Obama term will suddenly turn these obstructionist tea-partiers (who are now really disgruntled) into highly-cooperative deal-makers ? Why would we not get another 4 years of gridlock?

So what exactly is it you have against a dad taking time out of his busy day to help his young daughter with her homework? Aren't you guys supposed to be the party of "family values" ??? I suppose as with everything else in the alternate right wing universe normal things are fine for everyone EXCEPT Barack Obama, because, of course if he is for it, or if he does it, you must reflexively oppose it.

But forgive me, I digress. To answer your question, Republicans may be insular, rigid and crazy but they are not stupid. They want to win the White house back in 2016 and they would like to try to get majorities in both houses. The tea party has already lost favor with a lot of Americans and congress' approval ratings in general are at all time lows. Obstruction as a political strategy can only be effective for so long before the electorate says enough BS it's time to get something done or you're all toast.

We have just about reached that point. Not to mention demographically the Republican party is a shrinking party, not a growing party. They know they need to appeal to more voters to remain a viable party and they can't do that by continuing their strategy of pure obstruction. They will continue to alienate the very constituents they need to reach out to in order to grow the party.

If Republicans lose this election I predict there will immediately be a lot of soul searching within the Republican party and a new completely different strategy will emerge. And it will not be based soley upon obstruction as it is now.

And I'm sure he'd pounce at the opportunity to take full credit for the stock market rebound, like he does everything else.

What a horrible person he is. How dare he take credit for anything that happens on his watch. I'm sure Republicans would never blame him for anything that happens on his watch. Nah they'd never do that.

You left out what I consider to be a huge factor, which is Clinton's affordable housing act, which basically made it much easier for anyone with a pulse to get a mortgage. This drove prices to irrational levels, because the previous barrier to entry to get a mortgage was gone, so now you have dumb highschool dropouts who understand nothing about economics engaging in crazy bidding wars. Once they lose their shift at Jack in the Box, now they cant make the payments on their original mortgage, plus the HELOC they used to buy a new speedboat they couldnt afford either. That planted the seeds for the housing bubble, which, combined with the Acts described above, started the financial death spiral we are all too familiar with today.

I'm not saying Dubya was the finest president ever, but to blame him 100% for what happened is quite short sighted. Perhaps some of the posters are too young to remember what happened when Bill was in office.

Even as things started to collapse, in the final days of the dubya administration, I dont recall them saying the housing crisis is all Clinton's fault, the way the Obama administration likes to say it's all Bush's fault. Every president after Washington had to deal with the baggage of their predecessor, it comes with the job. I dont recall any of them pointing the finger at the previous administration as much as the current one does.

Will be sure to read up on that, I was 9 when it would have been enacted so I must have forgotten already

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I know Repbulicans love the word "no" but I concede that my statement wasn't accurate so let me correct it with the following:

The total returns of the stock market have reached all time highs under President Obama and the Dow Jones Industrial average is up 67 percent since Obama took office. Stock holders have recovered losses sustained during the market crash and have actually added significant profits to their portfolios during the President's term. Wall Street is doing more than fine. This would be a significant occurrance even during a vibrant economy but it's even more impressive considering the economic conditions this president encountered at the beginning of his term. This is a fact you won't hear Republicans talking much about.

I'm a registered democrat, but happy you see your inaccuracy. I don't disagree with you, but don't see a lot of direct correlation between the administration's activity and the markets. Investors seem to react much more emphatically toward Fed activity, the Euro crisis, and China than they do to any "jobs" targeting legislation. Only when congress decides to play games with the debt ceiling do potential problems come up.

It's obviously a significant deal to many voters and no doubt is there some correlation between market performance and the chance of Obama's reelection.

I'm more worried that the Fed's continued pressure on interest rates and now several rounds of QE (with less and less effect) aren't sustainable in the long-term.

Will be sure to read up on that, I was 9 when it would have been enacted so I must have forgotten already

That's a pretty good reason, when I was 9 I wasnt paying attention to politics either ! Google away; to make it easier, the actual term was something like the "national homeownership strategy", or something similar.

The idea was that by making everyone a homeowner instead of a renter, that would increase their emotional investment in an area, thus improving society overall. (less crime, more pride of ownership in the upkeep of the neighborhood, etc) Which sounds OK at first glance, assuming every new person who is part of the collective meets some bare minimum requirement for intellectual capacity, knowledge and drive, so they dont bring down the entity they have just been thrust into.

The same lack of athletic ability that might cause me to not make the sports team in the first place (under normal conditions), are the same factors that will cause me to lose games for the team if you lower the bar to put me on the team in order to boost my self-esteem. Sounds harmless at first until you think it through and realize that messing with natural selection (financially, athletically or however) is a not good thing.

So what exactly is it you have against a dad taking time out of his busy day to help his young daughter with her homework? Aren't you guys supposed to be the party of "family values" ??? I suppose as with everything else in the alternate right wing universe normal things are fine for everyone EXCEPT Barack Obama, because, of course if he is for it, or if he does it, you must reflexively oppose it.

Can't speak for others, not everyone who is scared of Obama's platform is a clone of one another. POTUS is a big job, just like any senior leadership role.
You cant devote enough time to that and be father of the year, there are not enough hours in the day. How much time do you think the senior VP's of Google, or Apple, or General Electric, etc. spend with their kids compared to the guy who stocks groceries? There are a LOT of jobs and paychecks dependant on the people at the top of these entities, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I can understand if Obama wants to be the dad he never had, but maybe that means that POTUS is not a good fit for him. As the CNN article I posted says, even Clinton made more time for schmoozing than Obama, when he also had a child in school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

If Republicans lose this election I predict there will immediately be a lot of soul searching within the Republican party and a new completely different strategy will emerge. And it will not be based soley upon obstruction as it is now.

I guess if people honestly believed the Hope and Change mantra of 2008, then that argument sounds plausible too.....